Madam Speaker, it is urgent to pass a Disaster Supplemental Bill. Citizens across our nation--from California to the Carolinas, from Florida to the Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico, are counting on…
Madam Speaker, it is urgent to pass a Disaster Supplemental Bill.
Citizens across our nation--from California to the Carolinas, from Florida to the Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico, are counting on us to pass a bill that address the urgent needs caused by natural disasters.
The more that passage is delayed, the longer our communities will have to wait, because just passing the appropriation is the beginning of a drawn-out process.
I know my constituents are waiting, for the 600 million dollars for the Nutritional Assistance Program that I have long been advocating, which will cover a gap in funding under the supplemental appropriations made in the immediate aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. As of last month, these residents who have not fully recovered are already seeing a decrease in benefits because we have yet to pass a disaster bill.
They are also waiting, like those in many states and territories, for funds Congress already appropriated.
For example, after 20 months later, of some 42.3 Billion allocated to Puerto Rico, less than half has been obligated, and only 12.6 has been outlayed.
This funding is still being reviewed with great scrutiny by FEMA, by HUD, by the OMB Office of Regulatory Affairs.
The funds that have been disbursed are being used to pay for work already done or have strict definitions as to what these funds can be used for.
Conditions and requirements that slow the flow of funds has resulted in companies and nonprofits that did work and provided services are still waiting to get paid.
So I welcome the language included in the Disaster Supplemental passed by the House, that provides a firm deadline for OMB to publish the Federal Register guidance for use of funds so things can start moving.
I am also encouraged by the provision that extends the 100 percent federal cost share, which is essential for communities whose assets and sources of revenue were affected; and the language that FEMA ``shall'', rather than just ``may'', help rebuild to better standards. There provisions benefit all affected jurisdictions.
One thing we must still address is the definition of ``critical services'' eligible for Stafford Act support, which today does not include important elements such as first responders, nonemergency major medical services, solid waste and stormwater management, and emergency supply transportation.
That is why I presented H.R. 2242, which I proposed as an amendment to H.R. 2157 but was not made in order, to expand the definition of ``critical services'' for eligibility for FEMA disaster Public Assistance.
By allowing these important elements as critical services, we can ensure that communities will not need to deal with such a burden after having their own resources destroyed or exhausted in the initial response.
For example, not being able to get supplies out of the port to where they were needed, and loss of access to major medical services, worsened the impact on the population in Puerto Rico.
My proposal would amend the Stafford Act to include emergency supply transportation, nonemergency medical, first response and security services, and solid waste and stormwater management among the critical services for which Section 428 may be applied. I urge that my proposal receive the needed consideration.
Madam Speaker, it is up to Congress to continue the support for the recovery of all communities affected by these disasters. Let us do that.
